Rendering 10

The article published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times" on November 2, 2012 is headlined “Pennsylvania Report Left Out Data on Poisons in Water Near Gas Site”. The article reports at length that  Pennsylvania officials reported incomplete test results that omitted data on some toxic metals that were found in drinking water taken from a private well near a natural gas drilling site, according to legal documents released this week. Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to note that the documents were part of a lawsuit claiming that natural gas extraction through a method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and storage of the resulting wastewater at a site in southwestern Pennsylvania has contaminated drinking water and sickened seven plaintiffs who live nearby.

The author of the article ,Jon Hurdle, points out that a scientist for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection testified that her laboratory tested for a range of metals but reported results for only some of them because the department’s oil and gas division had not requested results from the full range of tests. Giving appraisal to the situation, it is also interesting to emphasize that the scientist, Taru Upadhyay, the technical director of the department’s Bureau of Laboratories, said the metals found in the water sample but not reported to either the oil and gas division. Then, the writer quotes the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry which affirms that copper, nickel, zinc and titanium, all of which may damage the health of people exposed to them, thus emphasizing the importance and seriousness of the situation. Analyzing the opposite point of view, the author cites Ms. Upadhyay who said that the bureau did not arbitrarily decide to withhold those results. There are a lot of other comments on this problem - John Carson, a water quality specialist, testified in a separate deposition that he had received no training in what metals are found in the fluid used in fracking. Critics say that fracking contaminates public water supplies. There is every reason to believe that officials keep something back according to Kendra Smith, a lawyer for Loren Kiskadden.

Analyzing the previous grief experience, when water was tested by the Environmental Protection Department, and the department purposely avoided reporting the full results of its tests of Mr. Kiskadden’s water in June 2011 and January 2012, there are indications of proof Mrs. Smith’s case. The write expresses her point of view further: “Testimony of Ms. Taru Upadhyay was quite alarming. She revealed what can only be characterized as a deliberate procedure” by the oil and gas division and the Bureau of Laboratories “to withhold critical water testing results.” Jon Hurdle writes Kevin Sunday’s opinion, a spokesman for the department, who comes out against Mrs. Smith’s statement, saying that she had failed to substantiate her “outrageous contention” that the department omitted key markers in tests for substances that typically occur in water samples from drilling in the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation rich in natural gas. The reporter stresses the importance of Mr. Sunday’s point of view, thus expressing the officials’ position – they wanted to see only the results they deemed relevant to determining whether drinking water was being contaminated by Marcellus Shale gas drilling and production. 

In this connection, it’s worth while mentioning the fact how it’s important to find the truth as well as find the solution of such problem - Mr. Kiskadden lists health complaints — including nausea, bone pain, breathing difficulties and severe headaches — that he says are consistent with exposure to “hazardous chemicals and gases through air and water.” Analyzing the situation, it is interesting to note that companies like Range Resources insist that chemicals used in fracking cannot enter public water sources because they are insulated from aquifers by multilayered steel and concrete casings and are deployed a mile or more underground beneath thousands of feet of impervious rock.

The author concludes the article with the fact that the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, said that the state lab had been endorsed as “well-managed, efficient and highly functional” by the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

As for me, the article has helped me to understand more deeply how it is important to solve this problem both for us and for the future generations. Analyzing the article, I am shocked by the fact of how the water is polluted with different substances which may simply harm or even destroy your health. I bilieve that it’s better to gather and do all out best to find the most suitable and efficient way to prevent the water pollution, instead of arguing and blaming each other. We should remember that we all live in the global village and we extremely depend on the environment and its changes, and thus, taking care about it, or just not harm it is the key to our future on this planet.